How has this movie changed Classic Trek history...?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There's nothing for it at this stage, I guess, save pity.

It looks pretty much the same from the opposite direction, really, including the pity. Like they say in the service, where you sit determines what you see.

In any event, it's all make-believe. Stuff takes place in whatever "universe" one feels comfortable filing it in. Buying these guys as the same characters living in the same world as the TOS versions is easier for me than, for example, buying all those post-Connery guys as James Bond - but the reason it's easier isn't so much a matter of logicking it out as it is willingness - because I like TOS and I like this movie, whereas with the Bond films I pretty much only like the earliest films and two-and-a-half of the lead actors.

 

[6079SmithW]

I really don't care if it has or if it hasn't. I like TOS and I like ST XI. Hey, after I get XI on dvd I should buy another TV and have XI playing on one and TOS re-mastered playing on the other. I wonder if they would cancel each other out, causing an implosion of the Trek universe, thereby rendering the whole franchise null and void. Ha!

 

[Brutal Strudel]

There's nothing for it at this stage, I guess, save pity.

It looks pretty much the same from the opposite direction, really, including the pity. Like they say in the service, where you sit determines what you see.

In any event, it's all make-believe. Stuff takes place in whatever "universe" one feels comfortable filing it in. Buying these guys as the same characters living in the same world as the TOS versions is easier for me than, for example, buying all those post-Connery guys as James Bond - but the reason it's easier isn't so much a matter of logicking it out as it is willingness - because I like TOS and I like this movie, whereas with the Bond films I pretty much only like the earliest films and two-and-a-half of the lead actors.

But that's just it, Dennis: I sit with the partisans on this one and still I see it. And I see the moderator bias, too, even from mods I like. For example, a "whiny slug crybaby" gets a sternly-worded friendly for saying that those who don't think Kirk's promotion was premature at best are "deluded" (a term you've often used with impunity to describe TMP partisans [even though you list TMP as your third-favorite Trek film]) while the guy who calls those who do see it that way "whiny slugs" hears nothing until a shitstorm I engineered warrants a blanket friendly for all involved, myself included, even though the worst thing I said was that the so-called "whiny slugs" are simply "fans with a modicum of intellect and critical thinking skills."

All due respect (and I mean that), your response reminds me of the defenders of Fox News when they say all the news outlets are biased. I don't deny that that is true, I just say that there are differing degrees to the bias. So there are here as regards the rudeness and incivility over what you quite correctly point out is "all make-believe."

EDIT: Just out of curiosity, who are the two and a half Bond actors you like?

EDIT No. 2: Back on-topic, this is a little of what I said in the thread I started on this issue:

"the idea that the timeline hasn't been replaced flies in the face of every time travel story Trek has in its canon, going all the way back to "Tomorrow is Yesterday," reaching its apex early with "CotEoF" and and continuing through such TNG episodes as "Yesterday's Enterprise" and the DS9 two-parter where Sisko "becomes" Gabriel Bell ("I don't like your hat! And I don't like your attitude!") and, I'm sure, eps of VOY and ENT that I'm not fully familiar with. Time travel within a universe results in altered timeline within that universe. But Trek has canonically established parallel universes and time travel between dimensions [alternate universes, cf. "In a Mirror Darkly."] The part of me that likes to play with the silly SF concepts of Trek is just pointing out that the latter gives us the ultimate 'Get out of FAIL free' card."

and

"Reminds me of the guy who, in the old Best of Trek books, postulated that many Trek episodes took place in alternate realities--and this was a good decade and a half before TNG's "Parallels." He said it killed two birds with one stone: it cleaned up all continuity problems while giving credibility a rest, since he felt it unlikely that one ship would have so many notable exploits."

 

[Kegg]

If the nuTrek writers choose to ignore TOS continuity (which they have)

...in the time-honored TOS traditon.

Yes, and totally fair in regards to a reboot. Yet in the process they also completely ignored or rejected or even outright didn't understand the essential core spirit of TOS, something which works like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, Casino Royale and the Spider-Man films most certainly got right.

Ah, but there's a fundamental difference between TOS and all of the above.

All of the above are:

1. From a book/comic book source.
2. Have had numerous film and/or TV adaptations.

So what constitutes the essential core spirit of such works is open to interpretation. The Nolan Batman films, fer instance, presented us with an incredibly serious and weighty viewpoint regarding the caped crusader. It's arguably less juvenile and certainly more pretentious than the original comic books probably were. What does it share in common with them?

For any reader or viewer of these, the 'essential core spirit' comes down to which version they prefer. I understand Batman fans are big on the 1970s/80s comics which inspired the Nolan films, so naturally they enjoyed the approach taken in the movie. Presumably, Adam West's seriously campy TV series, one of the most successful and iconic iterations of the character, did not capture that 'essential core spirit', though it predates these works. So be it. Even if the Nolan film is channeling aspects of the original work, it is doing so via its 1970s/80s inspiration and in conscious opposition to the cheese and camp the West and Schumacher traditions represent.

But the original Star Trek has exactly one point of origin: The TV series. It's a lot easier and far more verifiable to define what the 'essential core spirit' of TOS is as there's one undisputed source of that, which is not the case for the various other franchises. There's no prisms and accepted readings of 'essentialist' interpetations which can be contrasted with the two dozen that got it wrong, so that a new take can pick and chose from a variety of fan favourites - a little of this Kirk, a smidgen of that Kirk.

There was just the one, like him, love him or leave him. So too went TOS.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

So, have there been that many alterations from Classic Trek as a result of this latest movie?

If so, what are they? (I'm to lazy to check myself......)

The new movie has absolutely NOTHING to do with "Classic Trek." It's a parody... or an "bizarro universe" version of Trek where nothing makes sense... either way.

Even the "future" doesn't make sense... a supernova which travels FTL and destroys distant star systems? Nahhh... not so likely, IMHO. The only thing worse than ignoring science is "faking bad science." I'd have preferred a technobabble solution to this rather than a "real science" solution that makes it clear that the writers and producers don't have the slightest understanding of real science.

Personally, I'll choose to treat this latest movie as "Spock has gone senile and is having delusions."

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Its the many worlds theory. Especially relating to time travel.
The arrival of the Narada in 2233 is the quantum event that created the JJverse.

Except that the universe that the Narada arrived in wasn't the same universe that preceded TOS. That's the point. They arrived in a universe that had a TOS-era props during the Pre-Cage era, and uniforms which more closely reflect TNG than the pre-cage era. And where, apparently, crew got to have their families on board long before, in TNG, Starfleet started putting families on starships.

Too many deviations to pretend that "it's the same reality."

(And please, none of those snarky "none if it is real, you dumbass" comments anymore, guys... that's not an argument, it's just snideness, nothing more or less... a way to try to "win an argument" without actually having to debate the topic being discussed.)

Only if I wished to deny reality.

What "reality" would you be "denying?"

The only "reality" here is that it's a movie with one actor from a prior fictional presentation with the same name.

You can't play it both ways. You can't say that anything is "reality" here (and thus, the argument made is "denying" it) and still try to make fun of people who disagree with your position for "not realizing it's not real."

Only if I wished to deny reality.

This isn't reality. This is fantasy.

(Can't believe no one beat me to that.)

The movie is fantasy. The reality is Paramount hired these guys to write a movie. They've decided that Nimoy's Spock in this film is the Spock from TOS. No amount of fannish pronouncements on the internet will change that.

They also decided that a cadet (not even a commissioned officer... an O-1) can be promoted to Captain (an O-6), skipping past every rank in between, and hopscotching the entire existing population of Starfleet in the process, because of a single mission where, let's be blunt, he got lucky.

Oh, and they decided that you can see a planet collapse by a "black hole" with the naked eye, yet not be affected in any way by that black hole yourself.

All we saw ON-SCREEN... which, by any argument, is the only thing that is "official"... is that a guy named Spock, played by Leonard Nimsey, came back to a past that wasn't the same past he remembered.

Anything beyond that is "unofficial and unsupported."

 

[Warped9]

^^ It's nice sometimes not to feel totally alone. Thank you.

 

[Ronald Held]

!) how many of us think that the Kelvin was not part of the TOS-VOY universe but a parallel one?
2) Why do people think that ST XI is a definitive distillation of TOS??

 

[Warped9]

!) how many of us think that the Kelvin was not part of the TOS-VOY universe but a parallel one?
2) Why do people think that ST XI is a definitive distillation of TOS??

I can't speak for VOY, but I'm convinced the Kelvin isn't part of the TOS universe.

People who might think TOS hasn't much substance and is mostly mindless fluff and shallow caricature may well believe nuTrek is a fair distillation of TOS.

 

[RAMA]

There's nothing for it at this stage, I guess, save pity.

It looks pretty much the same from the opposite direction, really, including the pity. Like they say in the service, where you sit determines what you see.

In any event, it's all make-believe. Stuff takes place in whatever "universe" one feels comfortable filing it in. Buying these guys as the same characters living in the same world as the TOS versions is easier for me than, for example, buying all those post-Connery guys as James Bond - but the reason it's easier isn't so much a matter of logicking it out as it is willingness - because I like TOS and I like this movie, whereas with the Bond films I pretty much only like the earliest films and two-and-a-half of the lead actors.

Except its like we are on top of the mountain looking down at those still stuck in base camp with an avalanche coming down. That's the kind of pity I feel.

RAMA

 

[Captain Robert April]

Let's see, in a few years, which part of the franchise is still standing.

Then we'll see who deserves pity.

 

[The Castellan]

Now we got ships big as Star Destroyers, engineering sections that look like Axis chemicals and breweries, Archer's a petty thinking, pompus ass; Vulcans are still arrogent like they were in the 22nd century, San Francisco's still got smog, and for some reason....starships are built on the ground by a bunch of guys with old fashioned welders when they used to build them in space with machines, workbees and robot arms over a century before. And instead of Art Asylum making awesome Trek figures, we got Playmates making sub par figures yet again.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Except its like we are on top of the mountain looking down at those still stuck in base camp with an avalanche coming down. That's the kind of pity I feel.

And that really sums up why there are some folks who really enjoy "tweaking" people who aren't comfortable with this movie. They see themselves as being "at the top of the mountain," and... and this is the really telling bit... they're "looking down" at the rest of us.

"Looking down" is what it's all about for some of these folks, no question about it.

And it's not hard to see the other element there... the "avalanche" is something which will wipe out the "base camp." So, at least we now have an acknowledgement that part of the glee some of these folks seem to feel is based around the idea that "classic Trek" is (in their view) going to be wiped out by this new movie.

Yet there's no hint of sadness, or even wistfulness, about this supposed "death." Rather, it's "wow, isn't it cool to watch it destroyed, and isn't it fun to tweak those who don't want to see that happen?"

This new "reboot" isn't going to have legs, though. Most people out there have already forgotten about this movie, and (admittedly this is anecdotal) I do not know ANYONE who really cares about this movie. (I don't count people on TrekBBS as "people I know" in that number, by the way... I'm talking about people I actually KNOW, in real life. )

The movie was a moderate financial hit, and has a vocal group of supporters, most of whom seem to despise TOS (and more importantly, who seem to despise Star Trek fans), but I have yet to see any evidence of this film really being LOVED, on its own basis, by anyone. Can anyone provide evidence (anecdotal is fine) of a signficant group of people they've met or who they know, who weren't familiar with Star Trek before this movie and now are really fired up about the "new Trek universe?"

I haven't seen ANY evidence of that. What I HAVE seen is people who don't know Trek who saw it and said "Well, you should love this movie, because it's got lots of that space stuff you're into." People who thought that by "liking" it, they'd have something to talk about with me (who they expected to like it). It was a conversation-stopper when I explained that I really didn't care for it very much. But from that point forward, the whole "this was a pretty good movie" changed, coming from them, to "well, it's not MY type of movie, anyway... but isn't that what sci-fi is?"

 

[Shazam!]

This new "reboot" isn't going to have legs, though. Most people out there have already forgotten about this movie, and (admittedly this is anecdotal) I do not know ANYONE who really cares about this movie. (I don't count people on TrekBBS as "people I know" in that number, by the way... I'm talking about people I actually KNOW, in real life. )

I have yet to see any evidence of this film really being LOVED, on its own basis, by anyone. Can anyone provide evidence (anecdotal is fine) of a signficant group of people they've met or who they know, who weren't familiar with Star Trek before this movie and now are really fired up about the "new Trek universe?"

That's pretty much what's happening here as well. I know plenty of people who liked the movie, but not a single one has expressed any sort of interest outside of the movie. No-one has said they want a sequel, no-one has said they're buying it on DVD, no-one has said they're going to check out TOS and previous Trek movies and TV shows.

 

[Warped9]

Let's see, in a few years, which part of the franchise is still standing.

Then we'll see who deserves pity.

My feelings exactly.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

A few months ago, I wandered into the Trek XI forum with an opinion that the movie was entertaining, exciting, but ultimately hollow and lacking in substance and intelligence. In other words, a typical identikit summer blockbuster, made to order designed by committee to offer all the oohs and aahs in the right places, and hopefully to sell a wodgeload of DVDs on release date. I was hounded out again.

I used to be one of those suckers who bought DVDs of summer blockbusters on release date. I have watched those DVDs once apiece, and now they gather dust. I'm not buying Star Trek. I wonder how many vehement movie goers will shell out for the DVD. I'm guessing a lot less than Paramount are hoping.

It will be up to the fans to cement this film's place in the Trek canon. And new fans at that. But for me this film was far too typical for summer. No staying power. The good movies have word of mouth that continues for months after release. Star Trek's buzz seemed to die down after two weeks. A wodge load of cheap and tacky Star Trek toys remain unsold in my local supermarkets, Pocket Books totally dropped the ball on the film tie-ins when the financial shit hit the fan, this film was left to flounder. I'm amazed that it did as well as it did.

Will this film have an impact? If the sequel gets made (it's still early days on that one, and studios have been known to can projects at later dates than this), it has to be better than the original in terms of story and character. Less bang, more brain cells. It needs to sustain interest. Star Trek also needs to be on TV. It is the natural home for the franchise, and one movie every three years isn't enough to develop this new universe that Abrams has created.

As for me personally. Fuck it. I have nothing invested in Trek anymore, haven't had anything invested since Voyager. Whether this movie revives Trek or not is irrelevant to me. I'll stick with the Golden Oldies of Trek thank you very much.

 

[seigezunt]

Sorry to see the Trek XI forum vitriol spilling over here.

My take on the movie has always been, in terms of films, Star Trek as originally conceived was played out, dead. It survives in the books and other media, but the original actors are dead or too old for a convincing actions flick. So I see this movie as an homage, a reinterpretation. And as that, it is entertaining. I'm a TOS fan, deep in my bones, since the first years of syndication. I don't see this film as blasphemy, or a perversion. I see it as someone's honest attempt to reconstruct and bring the story to a new audience. I can't fault them for that. It's a different animal now, and I'll be interested to see how it develops.

As to whether it is "Star Trek" or not, I can only shrug. Star Trek has been so internally inconsistent over the years, who's to tell. It's myth, not canon.

 

[Warped9]

I cannot say whether nuTrek was intended as an insult, but I did find it offensive.

 

[Ronald Held]

I tend to agree with the usual individuals. the Prime Universe body of work(movies, tv shows, novels, etc has not disappeared and slowly grows vis novels and fan films.
Perhaps ST XI has faded away because it had little substance, or it requires a few more movies to demonstrate its (potential)long term worth?

 

[QuasarVM]

Verily I say, doth shouldeth dropeth the vitriol! Vitriol BAD!!! Fire GOOD!!